"Perplexed in Peoria"  wrote:

> > JE:-
> > Since rb is just a model but c
> > represents a part of a testable
> > fitness definition of Darwinian
> > fitness, the only proper procedure
> > is to propose rb as a cost to
> > Darwinian fitness. This Hamilton et al
> > cannot do because they have no conception
> > of what a Darwinian fitness is.

> JM:-
> John, this makes absolutely no sense.  I can only assume that
> you have gotten signs confused in your mind.  There is no
> sense in which anyone but yourself (and perhaps an Enron
> accountant) could call rb a cost.

JE:-
It appears to make "absolutely no sense" only
because it is a reversal of a standard
position. When premises refute because they
are invalid (as Hamilton's can be shown to
have done) then it is worth your while reversing
them just to see what results. Who would of thought
that mass and time was _not_ constant. Those
without imagination cannot reverse premises.
This is one of the reasons why a high 
IQ is just a  measure of fixed 
conservative thought. Try reversing the
polarity rule as a mental exercise. You may 
be surprised with what you come up with...

> JM:-
> Furthermore, the Peshwari
> example was specifically constructed to illustrate how
> Hamilton's rule can be applied using what you call "Darwinian
> fitness". 

JE:-
Until I understand how you define your terms
it is worthless testing their validity using a 
hypothetical because no definitions by you exist 
to test. I will not misuse models in this way. 

> JM:-
> To use your terminology, Hamilton suggests that rb is an
> indirect return on investment.  When Hamilton's rule is
> being justified at the gene level, it can be interpreted
> as a return accruing to another subsidiary of the same
> company.  However, when Hamilton's rule is being justified
> at the individual organism level, the sense in which rb
> can be characterized as a return on investment is more
> subtle, but also more easily reconciled with GAAP.

JE;-
The above just boils down to one thing: an ABSOLUTE
fitness GAIN to the donor. The contorted fitness
posturing that has been going on here is worthy
of circus of double jointed athletes. EITHER the 
donor gains or loses in abolute fitness, it cannot 
do BOTH. The simple fact is,  Hamilton et al do 
not measure ANY absolute fitness so we can never 
know using the  rule as it stands. This means that 
at all times any gene that spreads via 
supposed organism fitness altruism (OFA) may 
have spread via organism fitness mutualism (OFM), 
its contradiction! This being the case, we
can never know if sham altruism (a cost
c for b that produces more than the cost
c for the donor) or real altruism ( a cost
c for b that produces less than c for the
donor) was causative to any gene spreading.
Anybody who suggests that ANY gene that
is measured to spread via the rule can
be validly supposed to have spread because
of only OFA has utterly misused the rule. 

Why not just employ Prof. Felsenstein's 
dictum: never discuss causation in the 
the sciences. Problem solved....

>snip<

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/10/04 5:34:32 PM